mersenneforum.org  

Go Back   mersenneforum.org > New To GIMPS? Start Here! > Information & Answers

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old 2017-04-21, 16:03   #1
storm5510
Random Account
 
storm5510's Avatar
 
Aug 2009

1000001110102 Posts
Smile Exponent Progression

The exponent testing process beyond TF has always been a bit muddy to me. Specifically, the existence of P-1 and ECM. So, I'll put some progressions below and someone tell me which applies.

1. TF .. P-1 .. LL .. DC
2. TF.. ECM .. LL .. DC
3. TF .. P-1 .. ECM .. LL .. DC
4. TF .. ECM .. P-1 .. LL .. DC

Thanks!
storm5510 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2017-04-21, 16:30   #2
science_man_88
 
science_man_88's Avatar
 
"Forget I exist"
Jul 2009
Dumbassville

100000110000002 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by storm5510 View Post
The exponent testing process beyond TF has always been a bit muddy to me. Specifically, the existence of P-1 and ECM. So, I'll put some progressions below and someone tell me which applies.

1. TF .. P-1 .. LL .. DC
2. TF.. ECM .. LL .. DC
3. TF .. P-1 .. ECM .. LL .. DC
4. TF .. ECM .. P-1 .. LL .. DC

Thanks!
https://www.mersenne.org/various/math.php isn't clear enough ?
science_man_88 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2017-04-21, 17:06   #3
ATH
Einyen
 
ATH's Avatar
 
Dec 2003
Denmark

CF116 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by storm5510 View Post
1. TF .. P-1 .. LL .. DC
ECM is only used on smaller exponents below the LL and DC range for people to find more factors of already factored or DC'ed exponents.

ECM was never used in GIMPS main project. It is too slow and combined with the low chance of finding a factor, it is faster on average to run the LL test.
ATH is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2017-04-21, 17:35   #4
ET_
Banned
 
ET_'s Avatar
 
"Luigi"
Aug 2002
Team Italia

10010111011012 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by ATH View Post
ECM is only used on smaller exponents below the LL and DC range for people to find more factors of already factored or DC'ed exponents.

ECM was never used in GIMPS main project. It is too slow and combined with the low chance of finding a factor, it is faster on average to run the LL test.
Correct. But ECM is the only way to look for factors of Fermat numbers below F30...
ET_ is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2017-04-21, 22:58   #5
ATH
Einyen
 
ATH's Avatar
 
Dec 2003
Denmark

3,313 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by ET_ View Post
Correct. But ECM is the only way to look for factors of Fermat numbers below F30...
Yes, that is another use of ECM. But that is still not GIMPS main project, so not relevant to OPs question about "exponent progression".
ATH is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2017-04-22, 03:52   #6
storm5510
Random Account
 
storm5510's Avatar
 
Aug 2009

40728 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by ATH View Post
ECM is only used on smaller exponents below the LL and DC range for people to find more factors of already factored or DC'ed exponents.

ECM was never used in GIMPS main project. It is too slow and combined with the low chance of finding a factor, it is faster on average to run the LL test.
I'm running P-1's now, so I was on the right track. I looked through the reports on the GIMPS site and noticed the ECM exponents were quite small.

One question answered and one curiosity solved. Thank you very much.
storm5510 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2017-04-22, 17:39   #7
LaurV
Romulan Interpreter
 
LaurV's Avatar
 
"name field"
Jun 2011
Thailand

100110111010112 Posts
Default

It actually depends on your machine. The right path may be TF, P-1, TF, LL. Considering that sometimes is more efficient to do P-1 before last(s) bits of TF, especially for very large exponents.
LaurV is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2017-04-25, 02:05   #8
storm5510
Random Account
 
storm5510's Avatar
 
Aug 2009

40728 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by LaurV View Post
It actually depends on your machine. The right path may be TF, P-1, TF, LL. Considering that sometimes is more efficient to do P-1 before last(s) bits of TF, especially for very large exponents.
TF after P-1. I take it that a very large exponent would be one needing factored beyond 75 bits? The P-1 assignments I receive are factored to 275 and are in the 81-million range. I've done a few TF's to 275 with mfaktc and it's a bit tedious on this hardware.

I'm running a DC with CuLu that was factored to 272. The exponent is in the 45-million range. According to the table in the 'Math' page, this is right on.

Thanks!
storm5510 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2017-04-25, 11:03   #9
ATH
Einyen
 
ATH's Avatar
 
Dec 2003
Denmark

331310 Posts
Default

I think the P-1 test before the last bit of TF was something that was done back before GPU took over most of the TF, I don't think that is done anymore, but not completely sure.
ATH is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2017-04-25, 13:11   #10
Mark Rose
 
Mark Rose's Avatar
 
"/X\(‘-‘)/X\"
Jan 2013

23·32·41 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by ATH View Post
I think the P-1 test before the last bit of TF was something that was done back before GPU took over most of the TF, I don't think that is done anymore, but not completely sure.
Part of it is a balancing game between how fast the GPU wokers can TF versus how quickly the P-1 workers will complete a higher TF'ed exponent. Ideally the TF is done first to fully utilize the available GPU power to save the CPU power.
Mark Rose is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2017-04-25, 15:41   #11
LaurV
Romulan Interpreter
 
LaurV's Avatar
 
"name field"
Jun 2011
Thailand

35·41 Posts
Default

It doesn't matter what machines you use, and how fast is one compared with the other. If GPUs become 1000 times faster than they currently are, we will raise the factoring bitlevel with a couple of bits (ten, more exactly, as the amount of work doubles with each bitlevel), but it will still be that the last bitlevel takes a double amount of time than the former-last, for about the same chance to find a factor (1/n vs. 1/(n+1), or so, see GIMPS math page). For P-1 the chances get higher faster, with the amount of work you do (limits, FFT size). Therfore the P-1 and TF "chances curves" will still intersect somewhere, and unless that is exactly in an integer point, it will still be advantageous to do P-1 before last bit of TF for some ranges. Especially thinking that we also use GPUs to do P-1 too (see cudaPM1).

Last fiddled with by LaurV on 2017-04-25 at 15:44
LaurV is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
The natural progression of (even perfect numbers)*3 Dubslow Aliquot Sequences 6 2018-05-15 15:59
Bertrand's Theorem for Arithmetic Progression literka Math 0 2013-06-01 12:42
Milestone Progression Update NBtarheel_33 Data 2 2010-09-02 03:14
nth prime number in an arithmetic progression Unregistered Information & Answers 1 2010-04-04 22:06
Arithmetic and Polynomial Progression of Primes? drake2 Math 13 2006-10-10 00:43

All times are UTC. The time now is 23:30.


Thu May 26 23:30:07 UTC 2022 up 42 days, 21:31, 0 users, load averages: 1.54, 1.53, 1.50

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2022, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.

This forum has received and complied with 0 (zero) government requests for information.

Permission is granted to copy, distribute and/or modify this document under the terms of the GNU Free Documentation License, Version 1.2 or any later version published by the Free Software Foundation.
A copy of the license is included in the FAQ.

≠ ± ∓ ÷ × · − √ ‰ ⊗ ⊕ ⊖ ⊘ ⊙ ≤ ≥ ≦ ≧ ≨ ≩ ≺ ≻ ≼ ≽ ⊏ ⊐ ⊑ ⊒ ² ³ °
∠ ∟ ° ≅ ~ ‖ ⟂ ⫛
≡ ≜ ≈ ∝ ∞ ≪ ≫ ⌊⌋ ⌈⌉ ∘ ∏ ∐ ∑ ∧ ∨ ∩ ∪ ⨀ ⊕ ⊗ 𝖕 𝖖 𝖗 ⊲ ⊳
∅ ∖ ∁ ↦ ↣ ∩ ∪ ⊆ ⊂ ⊄ ⊊ ⊇ ⊃ ⊅ ⊋ ⊖ ∈ ∉ ∋ ∌ ℕ ℤ ℚ ℝ ℂ ℵ ℶ ℷ ℸ 𝓟
¬ ∨ ∧ ⊕ → ← ⇒ ⇐ ⇔ ∀ ∃ ∄ ∴ ∵ ⊤ ⊥ ⊢ ⊨ ⫤ ⊣ … ⋯ ⋮ ⋰ ⋱
∫ ∬ ∭ ∮ ∯ ∰ ∇ ∆ δ ∂ ℱ ℒ ℓ
𝛢𝛼 𝛣𝛽 𝛤𝛾 𝛥𝛿 𝛦𝜀𝜖 𝛧𝜁 𝛨𝜂 𝛩𝜃𝜗 𝛪𝜄 𝛫𝜅 𝛬𝜆 𝛭𝜇 𝛮𝜈 𝛯𝜉 𝛰𝜊 𝛱𝜋 𝛲𝜌 𝛴𝜎𝜍 𝛵𝜏 𝛶𝜐 𝛷𝜙𝜑 𝛸𝜒 𝛹𝜓 𝛺𝜔